Fandom Legends: Magic Arena
 
Treasure Cruisin' Amulet's End
 
Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
  • posted a message on CoolStuff Inc Preview - Force of Vigor
    Hmm, thats very nice. 2 for 2 on the table for 0 mana is very strong and the not your turn draw back is not that important on this card (I mean: Doing it in your oppeonts end step or before their card draw is typically the best time anyway).
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Random Deck Discussion: Outcryqq - Roon of the Hidden Realms [5/19]
    Well, I think primers are a bad idea for this thread, because they will often have discussed anything we can come up with in a few days. It is a nice deck, but what is the point?

    That said, how did Brago, King Eternal do? I notice it was discussed and none said it was bad in the deck, but it is not in the deck of the first post.

    Is farhaven elf better than Yavimaya Dryad and wood elves? The former is much better offensive card while the latter is better at accel. Is the problem that you do not have enough forests? Have you considered Scattered Groves and/or Canopy Vista. Both have draw backs, but also upsides that may make up for that.

    Knight of Autumn seems better than Reclamation Sage or Qasali Pridemage to me.

    Dream Fracture seems better than many of those 3 cost counters in multiplayer to me (exile is nice, but cards are typically better).
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Random Deck Discussion: Outcryqq - Roon of the Hidden Realms [5/19]
    If I was doing Yeva, I would likely put as many untap permanents into the deck as possible (so you could treat each players turn as your own), which would make me rate things with tap effects higher. I think that would be a major change though, still, I guess I could mention Awakening as an option. Yes, it untaps everything for everybody, but you are likely way better off than everybody else for that effect.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    Quote from shinike »
    Quote from Reaper9889 »

    As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
    After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.


    That does sound like a reasonable point to me. I would have prefered that both cards said each instead of all to be more clear, though.

    To the guy above: I was asking to understand 509.1c better. The question is not from a real game. The probability that something like this comes up is basically 0.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    A pair of examples where I feel that this local interpretation seems to have trouble:
    You are attacked by two creatures with meanace say two grizzly bears and he got Goblin War Drums.
    You have two grizzly bears and hunt down has been cast by him on one of your bears and his bear. I feel that you cannot block the grizzly that hunt down was not cast on with both your bears but must block the other bear with both. (I would be very interested if some one has another interpretation here). To be interpretted locally, one would need to see that one could block the other bear with both bears.

    Next instead of one hunt down two has been cast, such that each of your bears must block a different of his bears.
    There are no valid blocks with this local interpretation, since blocking either bear with both of yours is not valid because one bear would want to block the other, which was enough before to prevent an assignment from being valid.

    A global interpretation has no trouble in these cases: in the first example, blocking the hunting down bear with both of yours is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no other assignment of blockers satisfies any and in the other example blocking either with both is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no way to block that satisfies all restrictions satisfies more.

    As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirments), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-

    Quote from shinike »
    In CR 509.1c, requirement is defined as "effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met" (emphasis mine). A means one, so the natural interpretation is that Shinen creates one requirement for each creature.

    Wouldnt that would just mean that the card does not have a requirement? (besides using the all word, shinen also says that Shinen must be blocked which is different from must block).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    Please bear with me one last time:


    - Shinen of Life's Roar's static ability creates a blocking requirement that requires all creatures that are able to block it to do so.

    Ok, there are no restrictions, so "all creatures that are able to block it" refers to both bears. Hence, this requirement is satisfied if I block it with both bears and otherwise not.
    Why then must I block shinen with my other bear if the bear that got hunt down is blocking the bear? It does not, from what you are saying, make me satisfy more requirements, unless I miss something (and I am trying to improve my understanding here).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    Thank you!

    Can someone cite some rule(s) for this? I did before asking the question consider rule 509.1 and it is what made me confused about it.

    As in, the wording of Shinen of life's roar seems to be one requirement that is satisfied if all creatures able to block it does so (because that is what the card says). In that case, it would be valid to block just the bear with the bear that got hunt down (in my example), because both my bears blocking shinen would satisfy 1 requirement (shinens) and blocking the bear with the hunt down bear (no matter what the other bear was doing) would satisfy 1 requirement (the one made by hunt down).

    Seemingly, from what everybody are saying (which was also my first thought before I got unsure) Shinen makes multiple requirements even though the text says something else. Which rule does that?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    I am unsure about how many requirements certain cards make.

    Say, the relevant cards are an attacking grizzly bears and Shinen of Life's Roar and I have 2 grizzly bears's and I play hunt down (given flash in some arbitrary way, say Teferi, Time raveler) on one of my bears and his bear. If I block the bear with the bear I used hunt down on, can I leave the Shinen unblocked?
    The question is in essence whether shinen makes one requirement for each creature or just one global requirement.

    The natural reading to me is the latter and in that case I also wondered whether this is consistent with invasion plans. If that is just one requirement, then it seems to me to only be satisfied if you blocked with all creatures, if able. It would always seem to fall into the not able case, because you cant block with your oppeonts creatures.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Random Deck Discussion: Outcryqq - Roon of the Hidden Realms [5/19]
    I think it looks like a nice deck and I do not really have many good suggestions, but a few:
    Sifter of Skulls and Pawn of Ulamog - does seem to be roughly the kind of cards you want, on death trigger, tokens, mana (not colored, but still).
    Deserted Temple - generates 1 less than your best land (better than cabal stronghold with cabal coffers in play). That still seems reasonable to me for a colorless land that comes into play untapped (it can also give you colorless in the beginning).
    maybe:
    Gate to the Afterlife - more on death triggers, life and looting.

    Are the "2, sac a creature: draw a card" cards worth it? I would rather play some more free sac outlets like Spawning Pit or Altar of Dementia or the already mentioned Ashnod's Altar or even Blasting Station, Culling Dais and Grafted Wargear. Not paying for things works well.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Random Deck Discussion: Outcryqq - Roon of the Hidden Realms [5/19]
    Something I wondering (the deck description doesnt say one way or the other): is the deck creatureless by restriction or based on the belief that creatures would weaken the deck? There do seem to be a few etb creatures that would help you,.. (think black myodjin, Gray Merchant of Asphodel)

    Besides there are a few obivious ideas (I imagine you have considered them but still):
    necropotence - fear of the needle? Is that card common in your meta?
    Toxic Deluge - one of the best wraths in black
    black market - you do not believe in mana too much, but in my experience, the one with the most mana typically wins
    Various black planeswalkers (if you can keep the table clean, they could help a great deal).

    There are also the seriously expensive cards, like imperial seal, but I will refrain from those.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Random Deck Discussion: Outcryqq - Roon of the Hidden Realms [5/19]
    I will echo 3drinks madness suggestion, but with a few other suggestion cards that have worked well for me in madness decks:
    Big Game Hunter - madness effects must be cheap. This is pretty much as cheap as they get (outside Call to the Netherworld - inside the Netherworld it is too dark to see) and it is a fairly easy removal spell that happens to leave a small guy behind.
    Grave Scrabbler - while you like having some creatures in gy, I imagine it is nice to get some of the small creatures back sometimes for cheap.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Tatyova, Benthic Druid - Infinite Mana or Bust - Searching for more win conditions
    You forgot salvager of secrets.

    If you have one of those combos, it is easier to use some creature with a draw cards effect to find everything else, than adding more wincons (you just blink that with your wizard). That said, Temporal fissure might be an idea: you just play a few cards and this bouncing some of their lands and a return wizard (maybe more of your stuff to replay though) and do that for a few turns and you won. Besides that it is basically the same as capsize after the combo - just bounce your return wizard too to get the fissure back.

    I would use the mana accel land auras, such as wild growth and utopia sprawl over the small elves. There are also more expensive options I would consider if you are really aiming for these combos. This way you got your accel AND your lands that tap for more mana.

    You can also use frantic search and rewind+another return wizard for the combo instead of the creatures (rewind requires something to counter but on the other hand if you can counter everything they got, you do not really need more), if your lands produce enough mana. This may be important since the creatures are hard to find.

    Merchant scroll may be a good idea for your deck as well.
    Posted in: Variant Commander
  • posted a message on Amass' potential
    Quote from darrenhabib »
    I think picking those cards is a little selective. Look at Army of the Damned.

    I honestly think this ability started off as something a little different when it was first conceived and then they nerfed it after testing, so they just hung onto the naming.
    I bet you it was without the "If you don't control an Army" clause originally. So you could use it to creature tokens or +1/+1 at your choosing. It would not surprise me if R&D reveal something like this in the future.

    Good point. I did forget about Army of the Damned.

    They might have changed it as you suggested. On the other hand, it could be a mechanic arrived at by looking at one of the cards I mentioned (not the rising populace one of course - that would violated causality) snd saying: Lets turn that into a mechanic.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Amass' potential
    Quote from darrenhabib »
    "Amass" is dictionary defined as.. "gather together or accumulate (a large amount or number of material or things) over a period of time.", doesn't actually resonate with what the ability does.
    Then they throw in the word "army" and again you imagine a mass of creatures, which this ability doesn't actually achieve.
    It only creates minimal +1/+1 counters, so in general it's been a failure in naming and flavor with the perceived notion of an "army" of Zombies, which it just doesn't do.
    It also encourages that you don't have an army at all, as gaining a creature (in general) is more advantageous than a +1/+1 counter.
    So again it misleads the idea of building an "army", as really you want them to die before you cast these spells. Which also means that stacking multiples of these types of cards isn't in your best interest.
    The ability is fine for Standard and Limited dueling because you are working on tighter margins, so an additional creature creates tempo, but you only want to play a few of them. An army they are not.

    I kind of disagree here. Wizards have basically always depicted a large united group as a single card. E.g. I feel that Angry Mob, unruly mob and Rising Populace are all similar to this in flavor. Then more comes, you make rhe creature repsenting the group larger. That said, I would have used a smaller unit size than army - on the other hand army of the dead is fairly common expression for these things.

    Like the op I feel that the only really good one is Dreadhorde Invasion. It is similar to bitterblossom which is a fine card.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Cathar's Crusade is horribly annoying to use - but what are the best alternatives?
    FWIW, Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest comes with the same issues. And I totally get it, it's very hard to visually represent counters on a creature. There's got to be options for an easy way to do it, but I can't think of one that works on this sort of scale.

    Maybe you could have a long piece of paper with different number of counters on the paper, like none, +1/+1, +2/+2 and so on divided out along it (with a reasonable amount of distance between numbers) and then put the creatures with a given number of counters under the corresponding mark. This also makes crusade work very easily - you just move the piece of paper one step. Instead of continuing you could then switch system when the creatures are big enough (like a range for 5-9, one of +10 or whatever is reasonable) and say put counters on those giving the difference to the box (at some point, it does not matter too much though I think).
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.